On the island of Kakuna, 24 ancient giant stone statues have been

Explanation for Rejecting E? Anyone?

I just changed (E). Did you see it in its current form?
_________________

This is how I solved it -

Before reading the answer choices, it is clear that the argument is establishing a connection between the sacred places and the statues.

A – This negates the conclusion that the two statues were not transported because they were not of sufficient quality.

B - The relationship is about the statues being found in such places, the argument does not establish the statues as a necessity

C – Comparison with the modern times doesn’t add anything here

D – CORRECT – One could not have arrived at the conclusion if this assumption didn’t hold true. Because had the quarry been one of the sacred locations, the presence of statues would be in line with the initial description, and the question of quality wouldn’t arise

E – The number of people able to assess the quality is really not important here

Here's (E). It may have been edited slightly since you saw it, but it's basically the same.

(E) All of the ancient inhabitants of Lakahoa had the skills required for assessing the quality of a stone statue.

Notice that the choice says "ALL of the ancient inhabitants of Lakahoa." Does the argument really depend on the assumption that "all," or even most, of the inhabitants could assess the quality of a statue? No, it doesn't. After all, if even a few of the inhabitants could assess the quality of a statue, then it would be possible that the conclusion is correct.
_________________

Quick explanation:

(A) is actually a weakener because, if the inhabitants didn't have a way to transport the statues, then it could be that lack of means of transport, rather than anything having to do with quality is the reason why a few statues remain in the area around the quarry.

(B) is not a necessary assumption because, even if there were DIFFERENCES between levels of quality of statues used in sacred areas, it could still be the case that the statues that remain in the area around the quarry are LOWER in quality than all the others.

(C) doesn't have to be true. After all, t doesn't have to be the case that keeping a few statues near the quarry meant that some sacred areas were left without statues. The statues in the quarry area could be extra statues.

(D) has to be true in order for the argument to work. After all, in concluding that the statues remain near the quarry because they were not considered high enough in quality to be used in sacred areas, the author must be assuming that the area around the quarry is not itself a sacred area.

(E) isn't necessary for the argument to work. After all, even if not all of the ancient inhabitants could assess the quality of a statue, if some inhabitants could assess the quality, then the quality of the statues could be the reason for their remaining in the area around the quarry.
_________________

Many people are choosing (E), and it could be that part of the reason why people are choosing (E) is that it's simply the last choice. We have to be careful not to choose (E) just because it's the last choice, it seems possibly correct, and we didn't see a reason to choose any of the others.
_________________

E mentions that all All of the ancient inhabitants of Lakahoa had the skills required for assessing the quality of a stone statue

if we negate it then all will not have skills for assessing quality

then it will attack conclusion directly saying that statues may be not o good quality


why we are assuming if some may know how to access quality
MartyTargetTestPrep
KarishmaB



then why author used all

The negation of "all" is not "none."

The negation of "all" is "not all."

If not all of the inhabitants had the skills, then some of them could have had the skills.
_________________

Check this. This is how we negate quantifiers.

All → Not all
Everything → Not everything
Always → Not always
Some → None
Most → Half or less than half
Majority → Half or less than half
Many → Not many
Less than/Fewer than → Equal to or more than
Element A → Not element A
None → Some
Never → Sometimes

Imagine a set of 100 things.

We can select 0 things or 1 thing or 2 things or ... 100 things

All => selected 100 things
Then the complement is Not All => 0 things or 1 thing or 2 things ... 99 things (anything but 100)

Some => At least 1 thing selected (which means selected 1 thing or 2 things or 3 things ... 100 things)
Then the complement is selected 0 things, which is None

and so on...
_________________